I'm a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst. For 20+ years I've been practicing on 12th Street, around the corner from the Forbes Building and right in the middle of the digital revolution — both of them. Having written for professional audiences and become a not infrequent source (e.g., Wired, New York, NY Times, The Today Show) I figured Web 2.0 was the right time to put my ideas out there myself. First at True/Slant, then Psychology Today, and now at Forbes, my "beat" includes clinical insights and research developments useful for building an authentically good life in our increasingly complex and technologically-mediated world, along with identifying those choices that promise more than they can deliver. Along with my full-time private practice I'm a Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst at the William Alanson White Institute and a Clinical Assistant Professor in Psychiatry at New York Medical College.

Aurora: Sequel And Prequel To American Gun Savagery

Here it comes: America’s all too familiar response to the savagery of gun violence. Like the familiar plot-lines of a Hollywood blockbuster we already know what happens next. In fact, news reports, op-eds, and blogs already have a painful familiarity. An event that should be rare and unexpected has become the latest sequel in a long series of mass shootings, and is prequel to the next. We have been in Aurora, Colorado before, many times, and will again.

Today feels so damn familiar, like any well-known story, and the familiarity makes me even more sad and angry than I would otherwise be, and I hope you too. We wouldn’t be in such a well-known story, essentially inside well-established social conventions, if we didn’t have such a violent past. Plus, these conventions re-establish what normal feels like so we end up stuck in place with ever more efficient people-killing technologies (i.e., assualt weapons) getting into the hands of people who want to use them. While Aurora is sequel to the last shooting, it’s prequel to the next.

Here’s the trailer for the Aurora version:

Stories, often inspiring stories, will be told about how surviving victims and the grief-stricken heal, about people finding ways to move on with life. Because our built-in psychological resilience is strong, most won’t need more than time, ritual, and the love of family and community–including what the nation as a whole can provide. But not all. We’ll also hear how some get trapped in trauma and need additional help. And then some of the survivors will follow in the footsteps of people like James Brady and Representative Carolyn McCarthy and join the growing legion of gun-control advocates who have had their bodies and lives mangled by a savage shooting.

Some political leaders will strike the exact right tone of mourning and compassion, like both President Obama and Governor Romney did yesterday. Or Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper who described “an anger that can’t find focus” thereby giving everyone words unique to this version of the familiar story. And others will show themselves to be craven opportunists, like Representative Louie Gohmert who used the shootings to stoke the fires of fear and prejudice.

Another part of the national response ritual will soon be stories about the “mind of the monster.” This will reach a crescendo when the legal proceedings take place. What were his demons? What led James Holmes to spend 6 weeks gathering assault weapons and then booby-trapping his apartment before shooting-up a crowded theater while supposedly claiming to the The Joker? Mental-health professionals like me will use this as “teaching moment” to educate about mental illness. We’ll try to turn this into a moment when we can reduce the stigma of mental illness. And we’ll bloviate about the need for more and better access to high-quality mental health care. All to little effect.

Just today, Saturday, the victims’ families were notified. Burials have yet to be planned. Shock has not yet given way to grief. And still the talking heads are getting ready for what is the big blockbuster special effect explosion in stories of American gun savagery: the gun control debate. Irrational and polarized positions will talk past each other. And it will be loud.

On one side we will see well-intentioned reformers reasonably arguing the need to regulate people-killing machines. “I don’t want to worry about my kids going to the movies” will be the rallying cry. Unfortunately, you can’t reason with passion, and people are passionate about their guns. Continuing to throw rationality against the winds of passion is itself rather irrational.

On the other side will be the irrational champions of vigilante justice passionately defending their right to unlimited weapons. If only the theater had been filled with George Zimmermans all would be well (of course, they would have had to have kevlar-piercing weapons, as well as being shooters equipped with night vision googles, perfect aim, and the steely nerves of a well-trained Navy SEAL). The outcome of all this will be that the side with the most money (i.e., the NRA) will once again shift the conversation their way, guaranteeing yet another version of America’s mass shooting story.

When the credits roll on the Aurora murders most of us will see a tracking shot moving from close-up to a distance. And from that distance Aurora will seemingly be at peace. But it won’t be. Just like other places scarred by gun violence. It especially won’t be for the people who had their lives mangled by assault weapons intentionally fired in a confined public space. Nor will the next town be at peace, not when violence is about to erupt there. As this sequel fades to black, everyone knows another version is brewing someplace, sometime. Our American story of savage gun violence will be told yet again.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Here it comes: the all-too familiar refrain by folks like Todd Essig following the tragedy of gun violence. Like the familiar plot-lines of a mid-day soap opera we already know what comes next. In fact, the reporting biases, narrative-fabrication, and language – including that used in this article (“people-killing machines”, “assault rifles”) – already have a painful familiarity. A tragic event that is still extremely rare and unexpected has inebriated the minds of the less-rational, allowing the gates of their emotions to swing wide open, contributing to the latest refrain in a long series of wailings for increased gun control. We have all heard the impassioned chorus before, many times, and will again.

Despite the relatively rare nature of mass killings like the one in Aurora, Colorado, we are once again encouraged by articles like these to react emotionally, to toss aside any and all rational thinking, and to surrender by degree or entirely an enumerated Right, the right to keep and bear arms. As a reminder, the main purpose of this Right is not to protect against random acts of violence, but against tyrannical government. To those who sneer at the idea of tyranny in America, be they further reminded of the dynamic nature of governments. Can you guarantee that your children will be free like you? How about your children’s children? Can you guarantee that they will never require the weapons necessary like those needed by the founders of this country to secure the precious freedoms you now enjoy?

A free society is not a society free from tragedy nor is it free from the whims or violent acts of some of its members. It is tragic that people are killed and injured, in such a manner and in such places, but the fact is that relatively few people are killed in random mass shootings.

Isn’t it also ironic that those leading the clarion call, as it were, for more gun control, are usually those least qualified to talk about firearms, weapons, and tactics: city-slickers. City-slickers in both the literal sense and in a loose sense, all who are less accustomed to the sanguine realities of life and death. For example, body armour doesn’t make the wearer impervious to the pain and the impact of a bullet. Hits that register will be certainly felt and either prevent him from being as efficient in his heinous efforts or cause him to flee. Also, the author’s dream that a would-be citizen-hero couldn’t succeed in saving lives unless he be “equipped with night vision googles [sic], perfect aim, and the steely nerves of a well-trained Navy SEAL” is evidence of ignorance, fearmongering, or likely both.

Yep, I’ve heard this chorus before, and it nearly always includes the NRA, the great and terrible boogeyman. It is tinged with emotion and quite bereft of logic.

Really? Already? The second comment and already you’re starting with the insults. I’ve looked ahead so I know it gets worse (and I won’t be calling out every empty insult but Bob gets credit for going first) but shooting of your mouth rather than grappling with the issue is really not terribly patriotic.

You can either be free and deal with the fact that there are people out there, complete lunatics, who aren’t going to get stopped by gun laws from doing serious damage or you can be a serf and come join us here in Europe where only our master(the government and it’s goons) and psychopaths like that Norwegian mass shooter have guns.

I would have thought your history and your founding fathers can teach you something about this problem or are you now saying that their lessons don’t apply anymore?

Oh not to mention there are other nation such as Switzerland, a country with the 3rd most guns per capita, that also have a huge amount of guns within their population but don’t have the same type of problems. So maybe, just maybe there’s something else that is the problem, not the availability of guns.

You know itshaze, I think I agree with your first line. I actually think that’s the message from our founders. But the mess goes both ways. And let me point out our founders were an incredibly contentious disagreeable lot who barely held together to launch our nation. Any idea there was agreement among them flies in the face of history. They were great men with great disagreements and today when people invoke our founders I think it is often done in a manner that is rather insulting to their complexity (and greatness).

I could be wrong but their system of conscription into a militia is how they all get their guns, and their training in how to use them. So, would you be agreeable to mandatory gun training as part of some kind of gun control. I’m not advocating that. It’s just that that is the solution implied by you citing Switzerland.

No I wouldn’t agree to a by the state enforced mandatory anything. But I doubt training in a militia is something that stops people from using guns to kill when they snap. If training has anything to offer it’s really just the ability to handle a firearm and the ability to properly identify and to respond to a threat such as this latest lunatic was when he entered that theater and started shooting. If that is something that would benefit a society I’m sure there’s a free market solution to it. If businesses instead of being willfully ignorant and posting signs forbidding the carry of firearms instead for example allowed firearms if the armed citizen has an insurance against any damages they might cause while responding to a threat then this insurance company, a private business, could have an option to buy a cheaper insurance if you have special training with firearms for self defense the records of which stay out of the governments hands. That’s the kind of training I’d be perfectly fine with because I’d get to carry my tool for self defense with me and only the insurance company would know about it but also businesses or someone getting accidentally hurt would be covered financially if something bad happens, you know, kind of like car insurance offer a discount if you have a driver’s license..

A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is at 19.5 percent, almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest nations combined. Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

And Switzerland which requires citizens to own firearms and qualify on firearms annually is among the countries with the lowest gun crime. Think that maybe the problem in the US isn’t localized to just guns and is a social problem?

Not to mention while other countries have lower gun crime, violence is made up for using other means to cause harm. For instance,

“Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa”